The first set of Regional Rankings (or Seedings as I like to call them) came out this week. Two GLIAC clubs (Wayne and Hillsdale) were in the top six, but everyone needs to remember that the committee issues these in each of these last four weeks and revisits everything each week. Why do I say that? Because where they are seeded and if they are even seeded at all is very much subject to change over the remaining three weeks of the season. While both clubs should feel good about where they are, winning out is the only thing they can do to try and maintain or improve their positions...and even Hillsdale has to be worried as their strength of schedule (SOS) rating (which is often a heavy consideration by the committee) is going to take a hit with Northwood and Tiffin still remaining on the slate. Teams like UIndy and Saginaw Valley aren't far out of the hunt and have games left that will likely IMPROVE their strength of schedule. Of course, everyone has to remember that there are still a few clubs hanging around the two/three loss mark from the Northern Sun and Rocky Mountain conferences and they may have something to say about things before it's all over.

This time of year is great fun, but I have said for a while now that releasing these rankings any earlier than one or two weeks prior to season's end doesn't make much sense to me. There is still SO MUCH that is going to happen and folks often get really worked up by the swings in the seedings from week-to-week. Of course, there is a ton of chatter that comes along with these so I suppose that's part of what the NCAA shoots for. Oh well, my advice is to only really pay attention after Week 10. At that point we'll start to have a real feel for where things sit, and that's when I'll actually make detailed comments about where things are and venture any guesses as to how I think things will shake out. I've adopted that policy over the last few years and am sticking to it.

While I'm not at a point where I want to start taking stabs at what teams' chances are of making the field, I will attempt to shed some light on how this process works. There are a lot of people out there who seem to think they can figure out how the teams are ranked. They take each team's winning percentage, marry it up via some sort of math with their opponent's (and opponent's opponent's) winning percentages and create a "formula" to order the teams. They then use things like head-to-head games and results against common opponents as ways to break ties. Those are legitimate/NCAA-sanctioned components that they consider, and I'll give them a nod for their creativity. Further, I'll also admit that they often get close or are sometimes even right. However, I would submit that it's a little more complex than that...in fact, I posted in a thread on the GLIAC Message Board that dealt with the topic this week, and perhaps more specifically "the human element" of the selection process. What these folks who create formulas don't account for is the fact that there are actual people involved with the decision. They are allowed to discuss teams, share their own insights, and even have football-based opinions on things and have those influence the outcomes. The NCAA specifically leaves that slice of subjectivity there so that blind math doesn't rule the process. Someone in the thread I mentioned asked what the "human element" was in the selection process, and here is what I wrote about it:

"...When folks ask me, I basically state that "the NCAA has a set of criteria that can be used to judge the teams. However, the NCAA does not dictate 'how the criteria can/should be applied'." So in short, the human element is how each Regional Committee applies the criteria to select its top six. Of course, their selections could even be subjected to even further "human" intervention based on how the National Committee looks at things...although I would submit that they seldom override/alter what the Regional Committee puts together.

Based on what I have gleaned from my chats with members of the SR3 Committee over the last few years (and they'll never tell me anything finite), they often work to apply a math-based framework so as objectify things as much as possible. They at times have gone as far as to determine how much weight they want certain criteria to have going into each discussion (they have them weekly over the last four weeks). However, they still may reserve the right to openly discuss whether they truly feel they have the "best six teams in the region" after they apply their parameters. They do all they can to make it as objective as possible, but the rules are written the way they are so that it's not all a "computer formula" and that subjectivity can be considered.

Kind of a paradox, eh? Gotta love the NCAA! Nah...that's not really fair...I actually think it's a pretty good way to do it. Any vehicle to do this is going to have its flaws, and honestly my biggest complaint about this format is that we get no exposure/explanation from the committees as to how/why they came up with what they did. For the most part, I can't recall being floored by anything they've selected but having some background would be kinda nice. One can dream...

Because of my understanding of how it works, I often chuckle at those who "think they have a formula" to figure things out and run those numbers. While they certainly can get close and may even be accurate, there is no guarantee that they "know the formula that is used"...namely because there is no specific formula, and also because each region is/can do its own thing to a certain extent. In short, I suppose, to truly understand the process is to know that unless you are member of the committee you won't "truly understand the process". Again with the paradoxes, but that's the way I have grown to understand things. I hope some of that insight helps."

Even more confused now? Sorry...like I said, part of this is that one has to simply accept that unless they are on the Committee and participating in the conference calls they simply aren't going to know "exactly" how it is done...and even then, they would only know exactly how it is being done in that single region.

If anyone has additional questions about it, of course I am always available via e-mail at [email protected], or you can private message me at Tony Nicolette. I'll stand by my practice of not venturing any guesses in this post until Week Ten. I may actually have something somewhat worthwhile to say at that point!